FA> NO WAY, NO HOW am i getting into a C vs. C++ argument,
 FA> but if i had to use structures and pass them to individual
 FA> functions, i would assume that a single class using local
 FA> (to it) variables would speed things up.

Member functions access class variables via the invisible 'this' pointer.
There is an implied "this->" before each variable reference
that belongs to the current class.

The advantage in C++ is not in execution time (it offers none), but in
DEVELOPMENT time, and in writing succinct code that is potentially more
easily maintained. Naturally, a butcher is not skilled to do brain surgery,
so a poor programmer often does not know how to use the tool and just as
often makes the task more difficult again by using C++ features to obscure
rather than enlighten.


 FA> Having said that, the class may take longer to initialize,
 FA> setup in memory or whatever else.

?? Why? In C, to do the same thing, you'd have to do pretty much the same task.


 FA> Didn't have time to test it for speed, but the latter
""looks"" more
 FA> efficient, the C++ version sets up a fair bit of extra data into the asm
 FA> output.

Looks can, and often are, deceiving. The entire idea behind C++ is to make
less headaches for the developer, not necessarily make code run any faster.


 FA> c2.exe Average elapsed time = 0.0253956 seconds
 FA> c1.exe Average elapsed time = 0.0245724 seconds
 FA> c1.exe is 0.0008232 seconds faster than c2.exe

Hint: when conducting timing tests, test multiple iterations - in the order
of 1000's of them. One iteration is basically useless for all intents and
purposes and it proves little except that you might have been holding your
tongue a particular way, or that your cache wasn't flushed in one instance
and maybe was in another.

--- MaltEd/2 1.0.b6